In a significant order highlighting the importance of consistency in judicial decisions, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to an accused in a criminal case while simultaneously asking a Ghaziabad Sessions Judge to explain why another accused with a similar role had earlier received different treatment.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that maintaining uniformity in bail decisions is an institutional concern and directed the concerned Additional Sessions Judge to submit a detailed explanation within seven days.
Background of the Case
The bail application was filed by Mohammad Rafiq @ Rafiqul Islam in connection with Case Crime No. 197 of 2026 registered at Sahibabad Police Station, Ghaziabad, under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
According to the prosecution, the applicant was accused of causing a knife injury to one of the injured persons, Noshad, during the incident. The defence argued that although Noshad suffered multiple injuries, only one knife injury was attributed to the applicant and the medical records showed that the injuries were largely simple in nature. The applicant also claimed he had no previous criminal history and had been in custody since April 27, 2026.
The defence further pointed out that co-accused Anshu, who allegedly caused a knife injury to another injured person in the same incident, had already been granted bail by the trial court.
Court's Observation
After considering the case record, medical evidence and the period of custody, the High Court found that the applicant's case deserved bail.
The bench observed,
“Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.”
The Court noted that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, the injury attributed to him was a single knife blow on the shoulder, and the alleged injury was not found to be grievous or dangerous to life. It also considered the fact that the similarly placed co-accused had already secured bail.
However, while examining the record, the Court noticed that the applicant's bail had earlier been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge on May 14, 2026, whereas co-accused Anshu was granted bail on June 9, 2026, despite allegedly having a substantially similar role.
Emphasising judicial consistency, the bench observed,
“Since judicial consistency and uniform application of legal principles are matters of institutional importance, it is considered appropriate to seek explanation from the concerned court.”
Apart from allowing the bail application, the High Court directed the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Ghaziabad, to explain the distinguishing facts or legal reasons that justified denying bail to Mohammad Rafiq while granting bail to co-accused Anshu.
The explanation has been sought through the Registrar General of the High Court within seven days. The Court clarified that the direction is purely administrative and should not be treated as an expression on the correctness or merits of the earlier judicial orders.
Decision
The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application of Mohammad Rafiq @ Rafiqul Islam, subject to standard bail conditions, including cooperation during trial and regular appearance before the trial court.
The Court also initiated an administrative inquiry by seeking an explanation from the concerned Sessions Judge regarding the apparent inconsistency in bail orders passed in the same criminal case.
Case Details
Case Title: Mohammad Rafiq @ Rafiqul Islam v. State of U.P.
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19253 of 2026
Judge: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
Decision Date: June 17, 2026
